Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Karol wrote:
Ok, but this means most marines stuff is just plain bad. Because they are not cheap, and most of their units, even if one ignores the point costs, do not erase squads. The only thing marines were suppose to have, is resiliance, for which they pay a lot of points. But they are not more resilient then IG or other horde armies, in fact they are less resilient in any game that uses actual points.

I'm going to ask the obvious question here: what about Power Ratings?

Karol wrote:It looks more like someone trying very hard to reliable game mechanics with random rolling for cool effects every 200 games.

Reasonably reliable game mechanics with random rolling for cool effects is the essence of wargaming.

Banville wrote:Oh, I have no problem with granular mechanics when it's a squad-level or platoon-level game. At the level 40k is pitched at nowadays, I think the KoW way is the way to go.

It's a pretty easy mechanic even at a company level game. The problems mainly start when you introduce crazy numbers of dice and a million extra special rules.

 Mmmpi wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm pretty sure a majority of Space Marine players would be perfectly fine with Primaris Marines replacing normal Marines rules-wise, the current problem is that the old models are left in a gakky rules-situation and Intercessors not having the options of normal Marines. Drop "normal" Marines, give Primaris comparable loadouts so people don't have to can their entire armies and call it a day.

The fact that everytime this is brought up it faces heavy resistance says otherwise.

GW could have done two different things with Primaris that wouldn't have annoyed existing Marine players: release them as a stand-alone army, or do exactly what AlmightyWalrus suggested. Either would have cheesed off the xenos players ("Why does Imperium need yet another army to add to the soup?" vs "Why do marines get a new model range when [faction x] is still using models from [number] years ago?"), but at least Marine players wouldn't be stressing over whether their existing units would eventually be phased out.

I'm on the fence about which I would have preferred.

And what would you say to the space marine players that hate both options?

"Were you expecting the range to never get updated again? They've been through at least three different iterations of the basic Tac Marine already."

There was a time when everything GW sold was metal; no plastic, no resin. For a while they were all combined metal-plastic kits. Nothing in the 'Nid range bigger than a Warrior has the same kit they did mid-4th edition. Outside the Kroot and a couple of tanks I think every single thing in the Tau range has been replaced since the initial release. It's not just kits either; Necrons used to make all you wargear stop working when they got close to you. Nids used to have re-spawning troop choices as a base army rule. Expecting a range to never get an update or a significant re-write is just unrealistic.

I don't get why you'd hate Primaris just getting released as a new army though. GW releases new forces on a pretty regular basis.

GW could have done two different things with Primaris that wouldn't have annoyed existing Marine players: release them as a stand-alone army, or do exactly what AlmightyWalrus suggested. Either would have cheesed off the xenos players ("Why does Imperium need yet another army to add to the soup?" vs "Why do marines get a new model range when [faction x] is still using models from [number] years ago?"), but at least Marine players wouldn't be stressing over whether their existing units would eventually be phased out.

Its not just Xenos players - its ALL the non marine factions (Imperial and otherwise) that have to compete for the design and production resources that is not already dedicated to the myriad of Marine variants.

The Marine line is (baring new units) more than complete with a massive range which was the major problem with GW - they had to resort to every more oulandish and downright stupid things like Santa Logan and Centurions.

GW did have a problem - if they just update the rules and most people would simply use thier old models. I am not sure they could have done better.

 AtoMaki wrote:

Karol wrote:
Ok, but this means most marines stuff is just plain bad. Because they are not cheap, and most of their units, even if one ignores the point costs, do not erase squads. The only thing marines were suppose to have, is resiliance, for which they pay a lot of points. But they are not more resilient then IG or other horde armies, in fact they are less resilient in any game that uses actual points.

I'm going to ask the obvious question here: what about Power Ratings?

basically the same issue, even with PL in stead of points the same Power rating buys you a lot more wounds of anything else, and those wounds, even if only rolling single attacks come out ahead by virtue of more models == more dice.

if we had a system where you could no longer fire over your own units, or through your own unit model by model, then marines being better individually would matter - but at the moment you just want to generate attack dice and have enough bodies that each incoming round dilutes your firepower in percentage terms as little as possible.

Marines need a decent cover system to survive and a decent line of fire system to optimise what they can do, its essentially the problem terminators have had for some time now hitting the rank and file marine.

if for the cost of one marine, who rolls one dice in close combat and two at range, but is removed by one wound you can have three guardsmen, who roll three dice in close combat, six at range, even weaker dice, but take three wounds to remove in a system where the marine has no way to actually be "power focused at a point" then marine has no way to square that.

Marines need to either cost not a lot more than IG, maybe 8-9 points each for basic troops (special weapons guys more as they can do more) to represent how they are not that much more survivable, or the core mechanics need adapting to put a few bottlenecks in the game where the individually superior nature of the marine can be brought to bear.

e.g. who cares how many IG you have, if one one can fire then one marine is worth significantly more, if the lot of the IG can fire why bother with the marine?

 Mr Morden wrote:

GW could have done two different things with Primaris that wouldn't have annoyed existing Marine players: release them as a stand-alone army, or do exactly what AlmightyWalrus suggested. Either would have cheesed off the xenos players ("Why does Imperium need yet another army to add to the soup?" vs "Why do marines get a new model range when [faction x] is still using models from [number] years ago?"), but at least Marine players wouldn't be stressing over whether their existing units would eventually be phased out.

Its not just Xenos players - its ALL the non marine factions (Imperial and otherwise) that have to compete for the design and production resources that is not already dedicated to the myriad of Marine variants.

The Marine line is (baring new units) more than complete with a massive range which was the major problem with GW - they had to resort to every more oulandish and downright stupid things like Santa Logan and Centurions.

GW did have a problem - if they just update the rules and most people would simply use thier old models. I am not sure they could have done better.

Centurions are awsome, I make no apologies for loving that kit. I take your point about non-marine Imperial players though.

Like Grav does multiple wounds to models with 3+ or better armor, make Flamers do more hits against units with 5+ or worse armor.

Example: Imagine Flamers doing 1D6 +3 hits against models with a save of 5+ or worse.


Though AP is a big change in 8th edition, the change to the horde clearing capacity of template weapons is another huge factor.

Because it takes resources away from literally everything else. Fewer marine updates, fewer updates for eldar, for tau, for guard, for sisters, for necrons, for orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Like Grav does multiple wounds to models with 3+ or better armor, make Flamers do more hits against units with 5+ or worse armor.

Example: Imagine Flamers doing 1D6 +3 hits against models with a save of 5+ or worse.


Though AP is a big change in 8th edition, the change to the horde clearing capacity of template weapons is another huge factor.

Yeah, the flamer nerf is still being felt. It went from a near point blank weapon that could hit 5+ models, to one that struggled to hit more than 3. And is still over costed to boot.

There have been a number of "What should the flamer be" threads in Proposed Rules. It's fun to discuss.

(My personal favorite is former-templates become 2d6 hits, may not generate more hits than there are models in the target unit.)

The Marine itself isn't so bad historically. The only book that's been on top more than the Marine book is the CWE book, but compare what Marines have been good for to what any individual CWE troop choice has been good for since 6E hit:

Marines:
-ObSec spam
-Gladius
-Limited use in Gman lists in 8th

vs

Rangers:
-Only good in the 8E Codex, and then just for 12ppm screens/chaff

Storm Guardians:
-Ranged from absolute dumpster fire garbage to just plain bad.

Guardian Defenders:
-Limited 'Guardian Blobs' for month or two after the 6E CWE book hit
-Guardian Bombs in 8E since the codex hit

Dire Avengers:
-DAVU (which is to say, unlocking Serpents)

Windriders:
-Scatter Bikes

Comparing Tacs to CWE troops as a whole, you see CWE has had better luck in the Troop department. But only because they have more *options*. No one CWE troop has been viable more than Tac Marines since 6E hit.

Marines have trouble right now, but it's weird to say that it's because Power Armor is overcosted, when you look at all the "Power Armor" OP gak that's out there right now. It's clear that Marines are more an outlier than standard bearer for the balance of 3+ saves.

Bharring wrote:
Rangers:
-Only good in the 8E Codex, and then just for 12ppm screens/chaff

They were pretty handy in earlier editions where you just wanted your troops to hunker down under a 2+ cover save and hold an objective at all costs, and there was the somewhat infamous ranger disruption table... (take that unit off the board, and that one, and that one, and that one is pinned, and this one comes in half way through the game at this specific location, and this one loses 5 models and is pinned... ok - going to start my turn now).

The "Go to Ground in cover" was done by Sniper Scouts just about as well, for about the same points. There were tradeoffs between the two units, but they both did that job reasonably. Neither were amazing at it, though.

The Ranger Disruption table was much further back, I was only looking at the last few. We could also talk about Metal Bawkses and everything else from 1st through 5th, and I'm not sure how it'd shake out. I stuck to the last couple editions because I felt I could do them justice.

Space wolves have consistently been far more functional than marines.

Ive started a mainly primaris army just because I like the new models. I feel like people would have bought primaris without any rules justification.

 Frontline989 wrote:
Ive started a mainly primaris army just because I like the new models. I feel like people would have bought primaris without any rules justification.

This. If GW had just rescaled marines as they have done in the past, I would have been all in. Instead they butchered the fluff and pretty much signaled to the every marine player that in a few years the army they collected over the years will be wiped away and forgotten about. Over all they learned a bit from the rocky start for AOS but not enough.

HoundsofDemos wrote:

 Frontline989 wrote:
Ive started a mainly primaris army just because I like the new models. I feel like people would have bought primaris without any rules justification.

This. If GW had just rescaled marines as they have done in the past, I would have been all in. Instead they butchered the fluff and pretty much signaled to the every marine player that in a few years the army they collected over the years will be wiped away and forgotten about. Over all they learned a bit from the rocky start for AOS but not enough.

Once again, first part is purely your opinion, second part is making up a scenario you cannot prove but hold onto anyway for whatever reason.

The first part is clearly labeled as his opinion (figuratively, because literally it's technically a predictive statement of fact, not an opinion).

The second part can't be proven any more - or less - than any other theories out there. It's heavily backed by "What's past is prologue". A fallacy in formal proofs, but a very strong piece of evidence when suggesting possible futures.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
(Also, +1 to both parts of Hound's post.)

 Frontline989 wrote:
Ive started a mainly primaris army just because I like the new models. I feel like people would have bought primaris without any rules justification.

Or just done it with just the new weapons - ah well here we are.

I wish these threads were most honestly named - ie rather than "power armour" its (always) "marine".

But then every other thread would be titled "buff Marines".

Every third thread would be "nerf Guardsmen"

Every fourth would be "omg GK"

And every fifth would be "CWE therefore OP".

On the upside, it'd be only one thread out of every 30 that complained about all four at once...

Bharring wrote:
But then every other thread would be titled "buff Marines".

Every third thread would be "nerf Guardsmen"

Every fourth would be "omg GK"

And every fifth would be "CWE therefore OP".

On the upside, it'd be only one thread out of every 30 that complained about all four at once...

Honesty in the title is no bad thing

Marines MUST be a mid tier punching bag. MUST BE. Its the cornerstone of GW's business model. Marines are the most popular army. If they were the most powerful there would be no 40k. It would just be Marine-k. Decades ago eldar and ork players would have learned that they couldn't win, and would have stopped buying miniatures.

So...space marine players...take one for the team. Or all you'll be able to do is reenact the horus heresy.

Also; house rules.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Astartes are suffering because everyone who runs them thinks they should be unkillable supermen, and not what they're described as. A Tactical unit.

So the literally hundreds of thousands of people who have Tactical Marines are just stupid and playing them wrong? There’s nothing wrong with the unit at all, it’s just that everyone everywhere don’t share your genius and run Tacticals the ‘right’ way?


...does it even compute to you that there’s a remote possibility that you might be wrong? That just maybe if the entire world is saying one thing and you’re saying the opposite there’s an outside chance you haven’t outwitted everybody? I’m sure you’ll just say something like ‘all Marine players are whiners that moan even when they have the best Codex’ or some other inane generalistic excuse to avoid admitting you aren’t right all the time everywhere always.





I think the change to the AP system is a red herring. It largely hasn’t changed the world for Marines’ durability, though it has changed their relative durability since what used to be light infantry got a good boost with a Battle Cannon being the minimum to negate their save and Str5 no longer wounding them on 2s. I think their problems are more from that they went from being glass cannons in 7th Ed to glass cannons with double glass, hold the cannon in 8th. They need an improvement to each durability, firepower and cost. The Primaris Solution - giving all Marines +1W/+1A and AP-1 on all bolters/bolt pistols/storm bolters/hurricane bolters/heavy bolters/chainswords/combat knives +1AP and making your basic Tactical/Intercessor 15pts fixes the core issues in one fell swoop. All that’s left then are tweaks.

The AP system change was great for Marines.

The issue is that it was greater for literally every other army.

Actually there’s probably a simple way to enact the Primaris Solution. In a Chapter Approved or Big FAQ change the points, then add the two following rules:

- All Adeptus Astartes and Heretic Astartes Infantry and Bikers without the Primaris keyword gain +1 Wound, +1 Attack and treat all weapons as having their AP improved by 1.

- All Primaris units lose the Primaris keyword, and hence can embark on Transports that prohibit Primaris units. Mk X Gravis models take the place of two models in Transports.

Fluff justification is that it’s far enough along now that every Marine (or near enough to every that it doesn’t matter) has now either died or undergone the Rubicon process.

kombatwombat wrote:
Actually there’s probably a simple way to enact the Primaris Solution. In a Chapter Approved or Big FAQ change the points, then add the two following rules:

- All Adeptus Astartes and Heretic Astartes Infantry and Bikers without the Primaris keyword gain +1 Wound, +1 Attack and treat all weapons as having their AP improved by 1.

- All Primaris units lose the Primaris keyword, and hence can embark on Transports that prohibit Primaris units. Mk X Gravis models take the place of two models in Transports.

Fluff justification is that it’s far enough along now that every Marine (or near enough to every that it doesn’t matter) has now either died or undergone the Rubicon process.

Honestly I'm fine with Primaris and Mini Marines being separated. You choose either more deadly loadouts or greater durability and combat ability. The issue, as always, is the balance not being correct. Intercessors are actually okay at 17 (and I wouldn't blink at them being 16), but Tactical Marines have always lacked bite due to Bolters never being good at the minimum price point for them and the silly 1 Special and 1 Heavy at ten dudes.

Sterngaurd and Vanguard are certainly a better pick at this point compared to Tactical Marines and Assault Marines, and this is due to roles being easily filled. Sternguard are just Marines +1. Vanguard are Marines +1. Company Vets are Marines +1. Company Vets on Bikes are Bikers +1. Chosen are Chaos Marines +1. And so on.

If you had greater internal balance, you can look at Aspect Warriors as at least having defined roles.

kombatwombat wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Astartes are suffering because everyone who runs them thinks they should be unkillable supermen, and not what they're described as. A Tactical unit.

So the literally hundreds of thousands of people who have Tactical Marines are just stupid and playing them wrong? There’s nothing wrong with the unit at all, it’s just that everyone everywhere don’t share your genius and run Tacticals the ‘right’ way?

Honestly, yeah. I've seen a lot of that over the years. With Veterans down to 14 base Tacs are now pretty tough to take, and that's an issue. But YES, people want their unkillable supermen. And many people DO play them not particularly well because they have an idea of how they should operate in their head, but they don't work that way in actuality because fiction is fiction, and game is game.

Case in point, the obsession over Tacs vs. Guardsmen, a comparison that has been done a gillion times. Often you see cries of "imbalance!" when one unit wins some math war over another. But he truth about game balance is that a single unit doesn't at all have to win over some other unit, ever, as long as there exists some other solution to the problem in their book. But the obsession is over Tacticals, and one of the reasons is because "unkillable supermen shouldn't be losing to guard."

 Mmmpi wrote:

Spoiler:

The Newman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

The Newman wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:

 AlmightyWalrus wrote:
I'm pretty sure a majority of Space Marine players would be perfectly fine with Primaris Marines replacing normal Marines rules-wise, the current problem is that the old models are left in a gakky rules-situation and Intercessors not having the options of normal Marines. Drop "normal" Marines, give Primaris comparable loadouts so people don't have to can their entire armies and call it a day.

The fact that everytime this is brought up it faces heavy resistance says otherwise.

GW could have done two different things with Primaris that wouldn't have annoyed existing Marine players: release them as a stand-alone army, or do exactly what AlmightyWalrus suggested. Either would have cheesed off the xenos players ("Why does Imperium need yet another army to add to the soup?" vs "Why do marines get a new model range when [faction x] is still using models from [number] years ago?"), but at least Marine players wouldn't be stressing over whether their existing units would eventually be phased out.

I'm on the fence about which I would have preferred.

And what would you say to the space marine players that hate both options?

"Were you expecting the range to never get updated again? They've been through at least three different iterations of the basic Tac Marine already."

There was a time when everything GW sold was metal; no plastic, no resin. For a while they were all combined metal-plastic kits. Nothing in the 'Nid range bigger than a Warrior has the same kit they did mid-4th edition. Outside the Kroot and a couple of tanks I think every single thing in the Tau range has been replaced since the initial release. It's not just kits either; Necrons used to make all you wargear stop working when they got close to you. Nids used to have re-spawning troop choices as a base army rule. Expecting a range to never get an update or a significant re-write is just unrealistic.

I don't get why you'd hate Primaris just getting released as a new army though. GW releases new forces on a pretty regular basis.

Because it takes resources away from literally everything else. Fewer marine updates, fewer updates for eldar, for tau, for guard, for sisters, for necrons, for orks.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Insectum7 wrote:
Like Grav does multiple wounds to models with 3+ or better armor, make Flamers do more hits against units with 5+ or worse armor.

Example: Imagine Flamers doing 1D6 +3 hits against models with a save of 5+ or worse.


Though AP is a big change in 8th edition, the change to the horde clearing capacity of template weapons is another huge factor.

Yeah, the flamer nerf is still being felt. It went from a near point blank weapon that could hit 5+ models, to one that struggled to hit more than 3. And is still over costed to boot.

It is nice in Kill Team however. A template isn't as important on the small scales, and a bunch of auto-hits for overwatching is a pretty sweet deal. IMO because of that I view flamers now as less of an offensive weapon, more of a defensive one if you expected to get blobbed by horde armies bumrushing a gunline. Although with that said, there's better units to carry flamers than tactical squads - tanks, dreadnoughts, etc.

I do wonder at what point level 40k is actually play tested at. Although guard is still ridiculous at low point levels, marines can get absurd at something around 1k by bringing 6 venerable dreadnoughts and blowing the enemy to kingdom come.

 Insectum7 wrote:

kombatwombat wrote:

 Mmmpi wrote:
Astartes are suffering because everyone who runs them thinks they should be unkillable supermen, and not what they're described as. A Tactical unit.

So the literally hundreds of thousands of people who have Tactical Marines are just stupid and playing them wrong? There’s nothing wrong with the unit at all, it’s just that everyone everywhere don’t share your genius and run Tacticals the ‘right’ way?

Honestly, yeah. I've seen a lot of that over the years. With Veterans down to 14 base Tacs are now pretty tough to take, and that's an issue. But YES, people want their unkillable supermen. And many people DO play them not particularly well because they have an idea of how they should operate in their head, but they don't work that way in actuality because fiction is fiction, and game is game.

Case in point, the obsession over Tacs vs. Guardsmen, a comparison that has been done a gillion times. Often you see cries of "imbalance!" when one unit wins some math war over another. But he truth about game balance is that a single unit doesn't at all have to win over some other unit, ever, as long as there exists some other solution to the problem in their book. But the obsession is over Tacticals, and one of the reasons is because "unkillable supermen shouldn't be losing to guard."

Please provide a direct quote where people in this thread demand Marines to become 'unkillable supermen'.

It's really hard to fix MEQs when even in this thread we get borderline trolls and other apologists who deny even the existence of the problem and come and invent illusionary wishes and requests by some 'others', who agree there being a problem.

Personally I'd be happy for marines to be un-killable supermen, as long as the point cost was appropriate.

because then you would hardly ever see them, except for maybe one or two in large games, or when playing marine v marine and then perhaps other factions would get more of the focus.

meanwhile back in the real world... GW like marines, marines can be painted easily to an acceptable standard and marines sell so marines will always be in the game.

personally I'd make the basic marines cheaper to reflect the lower durability in the game currently, keep the stats the same and the damage they can do per point comes into line with others then leave the specialists at a higher cost with more abilities. but then actually having a company of marines on the table becomes practical

Really they can solve these problems by just adding wounds to the models. If the points stayed the same but a guardsman or other weak infantry model had 1 wound and a tactical marine or other heavier infantry had 3 it would make them more in line with the lore and you wouldn't have to worry about points cost. Yes you'd have to increase wounds across the board for all models in the game but this is perhaps something that should happen anyway. This will never happen though I realize.

Ghorgul wrote:
Please provide a direct quote where people in this thread demand Marines to become 'unkillable supermen'.

It's really hard to fix MEQs when even in this thread we get borderline trolls and other apologists who deny even the existence of the problem and come and invent illusionary wishes and requests by some 'others', who agree there being a problem.

Gonna note, the post after yours is saying just add more wounds. Which then just amounts to either custodes level durability, or more plasma spam.

Meanwhile I'll keep beating my "Your stupid powerful weapons are all far under costed" drum and remind people that perhaps the game should be about more than blasting the other guy off the table faster.

Double the cost of special weapons, suddenly armies will seem far more durable.